53 karma · joined October 26, 2015
If you actually look at the framework they are presenting, it pushes the developer towards many of the "good OOP" points you made. So I'm not sure exactly what you're arguing here.
Lots of people are being honest, this article included. Don't disguise your different opinion as "the truth". Not everything can or should have a consensus.
The issue is here[0] and it would seem they still haven't addressed it a year later.
[0] https://code.google.com/p/googleappengine/issues/detail?id=1...
You can't just hit a reset button on racism and say all our mistakes our behind us, now we're all on the same level. Especially not when those mistakes were felony charges with lifelong consequences.
Laws are made by humans, and there is no guarantee that they are fair or ethical. The man in the article was caught with a couple cigarettes filled with a shredded plant (the illegal one, not that legal yet much more harmful plant). He served a felony for it because we instituted a draconian and racist class war under the guise of "saving the children from reefer madness". This country is finally instituting some sensible drug legislation, but the people that were most disproportionately affected by the War on Drugs are now disproportionately locked out of this new market. That is neither fair nor ethical.
Likewise, taxes paid for selfish reasons cannot necessarily be optional, as you suggested. If the tax is optional, you cannot trust your fellow citizens to pay it, and therefore you won't pay it. But a compulsory tax removes that distrust.
My point is mainly that you can be selfishly motivated but still require consensus. The author supports Scandinavian policies not (entirely) because it helps everyone else, but because it helps themselves. Yet they still recognize that everyone must participate for it to help anyone at all.
I'm not trying to make any claims about how efficient a socialist system is. Simply arguing against the point you made about paying optional taxes.
In the prisoners dilemma, it is in both prisoners' best interest to defect, but that outcome is undesirable for both of them. In the same vein, it usually isn't in an individual's best interest to invest in their community, because they could gain more individual wealth by not sharing it with the people around them. But that is a great way to create a few very rich people and a lot of very poor communities.
So do Scandinavians pay high taxes for selfish reasons? Obviously they don't think that paying higher taxes for universal health care will make them richer than their neighbor. Say you vote to lower the tax rate and dismantle universal healthcare. Suddenly you have a few extra thousand to invest in the market each year. That move was certainly in your best interest. And then your house is foreclosed because a purely random onset of cancer cost you two hundred thousand dollars in medical bills. The definition of "best interest" has changed quite a bit.
People are really bad at making long term decisions, about themselves[0] and their community[1]. Compulsory, high, and progressive taxes certainly sound like "we know what to do with your money better than you do" and that is hard to swallow. But when you consider them in the context of game theory, it's more like "we can achieve more together than alone".
That being said, it will always depend on the trustworthiness and efficiency of the government, and that is a very difficult thing to achieve. Fortunately for the Scandinavian countries, they seem to have it pretty well figured out.
[0] http://www.forbes.com/sites/maggiemcgrath/2016/01/06/63-of-a...
That misinformation aside, all package managers are agnostic about how large your dependency tree is; the large trees are purely a consequence (or choice, depending on your outlook) of the community. Could you imagine a package manager telling you you're using too many or too few dependencies? If you want fewer dependencies, use fewer dependencies. npm won't get in your way.
Speaking of the community, it is primarily what people like about node and npm. Sure, there are lots of bad packages. That's a side effect of javascript being the lingua franca of the web. Everyone and their grandmother is writing npm packages, so of course there are going to be a lot of bad ones. _But there are also a lot of good ones._ npm has driven web development forward at such a fast pace, I wonder how anyone can't appreciate what it's done.
Finally, some stats: ~230,000 packages, ~3,300,000,000 package downloads last month. That is a lot of users for something fundamentally broken. I can only wish to work on such "broken" software.
Really happy to see that this is a free upgrade, however. I've got plenty of loyalty for them.
A more charitable reading would be "don't use complex tools to solve simple problems". That's a fine piece of advice when your problems are simple. Simple problems rarely stay that way. Most of these articles lamenting the state of front end development make a similar concession:
If I see a section on my app that is really hard to with Pjax/Turbolinks and jQuery, I’ll bring in a library/framework like Vue.js, React, Angular. All good choices for doing really complex forms(although I find Angular to be the best at this), with a ton of conditional validation. You know what though, these are the outliers in my experience, not the norm.
Sure, adding a form to your front page can be done with a couple lines of vanilla javascript. But you suffer the cost of a framework or library at the start of a project because it pays dividends at the end of a project. When you have to filter a list of ten thousand items as the user types, you'll probably wish you could use virtual DOM diffing. When you have to step through a series of ten asynchronous requests before updating a view, you'll probably wish you could use async/await. When your site takes five seconds to load over 3G because of your single monolithic codebase, you'll probably wish you could tree-shake your dependencies. The tools mocked by the author have real uses, he just refuses to see them.
Now NPM 3 has worked around the utterly idiotic max path on Windows at the cost of slower installs. That's also annoying. It's also temporary. Just wait a little, and keep using NPM 2 if speed is your top concern.
Do have experience with either? I believe the "enriched" solitary confinement you're proposing would be more maddening than you think. I agree that the US has a problem with criminals creating new networks inside of prisons, but stripping away all real interaction is throwing the baby out with the bath water. Functioning members of society need to know how to interact with each other. If you believe that prisons should rehabilitate, you should agree that they need to encourage safe, respectful, and real interaction with strangers.
Again, the anchor point tool is necessary here. First you drag the top line up to add split anchors (or cusp nodes, haven't ever used that term) to the two adjacent points. Then you can use either the anchor point tool or the direct selection tool to adjust the two new anchors.
The anchor point tool is essential to using Illustrator. You can read more about it under "Convert an anchor point precisely using the Convert Anchor Point tool" here: https://helpx.adobe.com/illustrator/using/editing-paths.html
One feature Adobe Illustrator is sorely lacking (afaik) is grid snapping for anchors. They will snap to objects, lines, and points, but grid snapping would be really helpful.
- Draw a box with 4 sides.
- Use the Anchor Point Tool (shift + c) to select the top line and drag it. The adjacent points will split their anchors.
You can use the Anchor Point Tool to convert points between corner mode, mirrored anchor mode, and split anchor mode. Not sure if those are the official terms.